"Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody’s hands [who] doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. “It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.”

Shotguns have their uses but if they were truly the end all defense weapon, why do our (and everyone else's) police & military, and citizens (where allowed) have so many different platforms available?
Each has it's preferred, and most efficient, use.

But if you think about it - shotguns are typically bulky & therefore hard to conceal, use (relatively) large ammo, have limited capacity, and a limited effective range. It's the ideal gun for gun grabbers to allow (for now).

I had written my representatives a couple of weeks ago and just got this response from Marco Rubio:

Dear Mr. Greenberg,

Thank you for writing me regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I understand this is an important issue and I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I hold the fundamental belief the Second Amendment should not be altered. At the same time, I have always been open to measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

In light of the recent tragedies, some have suggested restricting gun ownership and have suggested ways to curb gun violence. I am always open to ideas on how to stop violent crimes, however I have concerns when these suggestions are solely directed toward restricting gun ownership. Given the Constitution's clear stance on gun ownership, I will continue to support an individual's right to own firearms.

It is an honor and a privilege to serve you as your United States Senator. I appreciate you offering your opinion on this issue. If I can ever be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Rapier1772 wrote: Shotguns have their uses but if they were truly the end all defense weapon, why do our (and everyone else's) police & military, and citizens (where allowed) have so many different platforms available?
Each has it's preferred, and most efficient, use.

But if you think about it - shotguns are typically bulky & therefore hard to conceal, use (relatively) large ammo, have limited capacity, and a limited effective range. It's the ideal gun for gun grabbers to allow (for now).

We're going back to bows & arrows guys, get practicing.

Not necessarily. Saiga 12. AR-12. AA12. KSG... However, you're right, why don't soldiers around the world carry shotguns? Some do, but most don't.

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital. They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mental unstable.

“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.

Let's make sure the tracking policy never leaves PRK.

Also, if their policy is so freakin' effective & wonderful, why do so many criminals have guns down there?

Also in the California news today: a bill to ban all lead-containing bullets was introduced in California legislature. The environmentalists say that it is needed to protect the predators who feed on shot carcasses from lead poisoning. This is in spite of the acknowledgement that: "... incidences of poisoning have not declined despite a ban since 2008 on the use of lead ammunition in the eight-county area where condor recovery is under way". Don't let fact sway your opinion!

Think about it.... The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition. Since the Feds take a dim view of suitable bullet-making alternatives such as brass, banning all ammo is the perfect way to circumvent the intent of the 2nd.